PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CHAM EU LENG

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CHAM EU LENG

Debtor's application dismissed because debtor failed to dispute the amount in the bankruptcy notice within the seven-day period mandated by s.3(2)(ii) Bankruptcy Act 1967, the creditor had taken into account the relevant settlement payment (RM53,250.00) in its calculation, the correspondence was not protected by without prejudice privilege and there was no statutory obligation on the creditor to produce further documentary proof; accordingly the petition stands and the bankruptcy order is recorded.

Citation
KB-29NCC-83-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Debtor: CHAM EU LENG; Judgment Creditor: MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 July 2025
Case Number
KB-29NCC-83-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Decision on Debtor's Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Creditor's Petition (lampiran 41) and Objection (lampiran 40)
Outcome
Debtor's application (Lampiran 41) dismissed; debtor's notice to oppose (Lampiran 40) dismissed; bankruptcy order recorded against Cham Eu Leng
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Notice, Without Prejudice Communications, Adverse Inference, Service and Time Limits Under S.3(2)(ii), Judgment Debt Enforcement
Source Language
Malay/English
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Evidence Bankruptcy Notice Without Prejudice Communications Adverse Inference Service and Time Limits Under S.3(2)(ii) Judgment Debt Enforcement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAM EU LENG

Judgment Debtor

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Decision on Debtor's Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Creditor's Petition (lampiran 41) and Objection (lampiran 40)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debtor can challenge the amount stated in the bankruptcy notice and petition after failing to give notice within seven days under s.3(2)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967
  2. 2 Whether communications relied on by the debtor are protected by without prejudice privilege
  3. 3 Whether the creditor was required to produce documentary proof of the settlement payment by a third party (Ronny) and whether failure to do so attracts an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Debtor's application dismissed because debtor failed to dispute the amount in the bankruptcy notice within the seven-day period mandated by s.3(2)(ii) Bankruptcy Act 1967, the creditor had taken into account the relevant settlement payment (RM53,250.00) in its calculation, the correspondence was not protected by without prejudice privilege and there was no statutory obligation on the creditor to produce further documentary proof; accordingly the petition stands and the bankruptcy order is recorded.

Court Disposition

Debtor's application (Lampiran 41) dismissed; debtor's notice to oppose (Lampiran 40) dismissed; bankruptcy order recorded against Cham Eu Leng

Orders

  • Lampiran 41 dismissed with costs RM500.00
  • Lampiran 40 dismissed